Oxford Station platform 5 and western entrance

[The Planner]

Where is the 2 minutes coming from?

 

[zwk500]

I saw somewhere above reference to trains crossing from Platform 4/5 to the Bicester line? Could something be provided (reinstated) to allow grade separation via Yarnton-ish off the Worcester lines?
It seems to me someone needs (maybe they have already?) to consider where if anywhere trains off EWR might go to if they are not to just terminate and return from Platforms 1 and 2. Are more platforms definitely needed?

Yes, it could be done. But for a price. It wouldn't be reinstated, the only connection faced towards Worcester. As mentioned above, the proposed P5 layout makes the operation of Northbound trains very efficient, together with the remodelling of Oxford to Wolvercote Jn. There are far more urgent places to put flyovers in.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think you’re missing the point. They aren’t freight loops. They are through tracks which freight trains use. It enables freight to go through the station at speed, whilst passenger trains are in the platform (having terminated, for example). And because the freight goes through at speed it enables the route to be clear for following or conflicting moves more quickly, thereby increasing capacity.

Besides, taking 2 platformless tracks out of the middle of a formation would enable precisely zero additional platforms - it’s not enough space.

I was told that freight trains sit in them waiting paths, happy to stand corrected if that is not the case. Would you still need them them if you finished Oxford's rebuild and had four through platforms, though? It would then be easy enough to route the freights through the opposite face of the occupied platform, after all. Freight trains used to run through platforms at what felt like full pelt when I used to travel regularly along the WCML, so can't be that much of a problem?

The ship has long since sailed, but whilst the space wouldn't be much use for squeezing a platform in with everything else in the same place, had they closed up the resulting gap and rebuilt the existing platform 2/3 as an island further west than they have, then they probably would have had room for a third island, giving 6 through lines and still having room for a couple of east side bays if desired. The main constraint is Botley Road and its junction, but from what I saw 6 through lines would result in the easternmost rail bridge being a single-track's width further east than the planned one at most, which can't be insurmountable, surely?

 

[4COR]

Yes, it could be done. But for a price. It wouldn't be reinstated, the only connection faced towards Worcester. As mentioned above, the proposed P5 layout makes the operation of Northbound trains very efficient, together with the remodelling of Oxford to Wolvercote Jn. There are far more urgent places to put flyovers in.

I presume that the question was about putting in a new link between the Cherwell Valley Line and the Bicester line - but yes, there's a lot of roads in the way.

The A4260 occupies the old Bicester/Cotswold line alignment down to the roundabout with the A44 - and the A34 also plows it way through the middle of it all. Massive cost to put a flyover in there!

 

[mwmbwls]

Sooner or later, there will be a question of EWR and Chiltern operating out of the new bays and how will they cope with with the Midland Railways described as "The embarrassment of prosperity" when it had to turn away traffic prior to quadrupling from Glendon Junction, One possibility is for EWR trains to continue through Oxford Station and on to the "Not quite to Cowley" branch. EWR is being built to facilitate commuting by rail and placing commuters closer to the new cluster centres of work seems logical. Already there are proposals for a new cluster next to the south west end of Oxford Station - other such sites on radial routes out of the city seem probable.
Proposed Oxford Business Park and Science Park Stations by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

 

[hwl]

I saw somewhere above reference to trains crossing from Platform 4/5 to the Bicester line? Could something be provided (reinstated) to allow grade separation via Yarnton-ish off the Worcester lines?

They won't - Wishful thinking from some one without reference to facts!

It seems to me someone needs (maybe they have already?) to consider where if anywhere trains off EWR might go to if they are not to just terminate and return from Platforms 1 and 2. Are more platforms definitely needed?

Passive provision for P2 as through track and platform

I was told that freight trains sit in them waiting paths, happy to stand corrected if that is not the case. Would you still need them them if you finished Oxford's rebuild and had four through platforms, though? It would then be easy enough to route the freights through the opposite face of the occupied platform, after all. Freight trains used to run through platforms at what felt like full pelt when I used to travel regularly along the WCML, so can't be that much of a problem?

The ship has long since sailed, but whilst the space wouldn't be much use for squeezing a platform in with everything else in the same place, had they closed up the resulting gap and rebuilt the existing platform 2/3 as an island further west than they have, then they probably would have had room for a third island, giving 6 through lines and still having room for a couple of east side bays if desired. The main constraint is Botley Road and its junction, but from what I saw 6 through lines would result in the easternmost rail bridge being a single-track's width further east than the planned one at most, which can't be insurmountable, surely?

Freight trains mostly roll straight through unless something else running late has results in a restrictive aspect.
The is passive provision to turn P2 in to a 4th through platform and yes you would still want the through lines as the fast passenger services catch the stoppers especially northbound.

 

[JamesT]

I was told that freight trains sit in them waiting paths, happy to stand corrected if that is not the case. Would you still need them them if you finished Oxford's rebuild and had four through platforms, though? It would then be easy enough to route the freights through the opposite face of the occupied platform, after all. Freight trains used to run through platforms at what felt like full pelt when I used to travel regularly along the WCML, so can't be that much of a problem?

Although you could run freight through platforms, it is going to constrain capacity. Part of the reason for having two platform faces in a direction is the ability to have them both occupied at the same time. It's not unusual currently to have trains waiting for the platform to clear before coming in, which shouldn't be as much of an issue with more platforms. But if you remove the through lines then the freight trains are competing for those platforms too and losing part of the capacity increase.

The ship has long since sailed, but whilst the space wouldn't be much use for squeezing a platform in with everything else in the same place, had they closed up the resulting gap and rebuilt the existing platform 2/3 as an island further west than they have, then they probably would have had room for a third island, giving 6 through lines and still having room for a couple of east side bays if desired. The main constraint is Botley Road and its junction, but from what I saw 6 through lines would result in the easternmost rail bridge being a single-track's width further east than the planned one at most, which can't be insurmountable, surely?

As noted in previous posts, it's already quite a steep down and up for the road to get under the bridge. Pushing the edge further East either requires it to become even steeper, or having to remodel Frideswide Square again to lower it down to a suitable level to meet the road.

 

[Mikey C]

Although you could run freight through platforms, it is going to constrain capacity. Part of the reason for having two platform faces in a direction is the ability to have them both occupied at the same time. It's not unusual currently to have trains waiting for the platform to clear before coming in, which shouldn't be as much of an issue with more platforms. But if you remove the through lines then the freight trains are competing for those platforms too and losing part of the capacity increase.



As noted in previous posts, it's already quite a steep down and up for the road to get under the bridge. Pushing the edge further East either requires it to become even steeper, or having to remodel Frideswide Square again to lower it down to a suitable level to meet the road.

It just feels like a waste of space to have TWO tracks devoted just for freight trains passing through, when platforms are at such a premium and not consistently allocated either, with London trains going from either side.

Isn't there also a proposal to electrify to Hanborough, both to serve that station better with the terminators, but also to clear space in Oxford?

 

[hwl]

It just feels like a waste of space to have TWO tracks devoted just for freight trains passing through, when platforms are at such a premium and not consistently allocated either, with London trains going from either side.

Isn't there also a proposal to electrify to Hanborough, both to serve that station better with the terminators, but also to clear space in Oxford?

Given the way paths are flighted through it isn't. Even more important with more 775m services in the future. e.g. Northbound a freight needs to get through and clear enough not to get in the way of a following XC voyager all the way to Leamington.

Hanborough works well because it is an alternative to the stoppers spending 30mins in the down CS, but with P5 and turn back there you could lose 1 stopper diagram immediately instead. Electrification and Hanborough is even better.

 

[zwk500]

It just feels like a waste of space to have TWO tracks devoted just for freight trains passing through, when platforms are at such a premium and not consistently allocated either, with London trains going from either side.

Isn't there also a proposal to electrify to Hanborough, both to serve that station better with the terminators, but also to clear space in Oxford?

The tracks aren't devoted to freight, freight just happens to be the main user. It's on one of the busiest freight routes in the country, if there weren't lines kept clear by not having platforms on them you'd end up with much poorer regulation as freights were either trapped the wrong side of Oxford waiting for a platform to pass through or having to be put through first and delay passenger trains trapped behind them.

 

[BrianW]

Indeed P5 will help massively as regards shorter timetabled headways northbound. It will also allow reversals in practice back towards Didcot from P4/5 reducing the current turnback north of the station with 20-30mins in the down sidings, which will improve the usability of P3 directly and indirectly P1/2 as access to P2 is then clear for longer enabling more parallel moves as will replacing the points at New North Jn with higher speed ones.

More detail here:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Oxford-Corridor-Phase-2-Public-Engagement.pdf

I should have looked at this video earlier; a pity tho' that its 46mins of must be one of the least easy to listen to rather hesitant voices. A lot of work to 'ease off' the Botley Road gradients and still end up with low headroom ...
I'm also not convinced that a new entrance is a sufficient gain for the loss of the 2002-built and well-appreciated YHA. Have YHA been bought off- there was no mention of relocation. Why not a rebuild over a new entrance? And someone entering that way will have to ascend somehow to reach Platform 4/5 and walk along the platform to reach a lift/stairs to the footbridge to reach Platforms 1, 2 and 3. I imagine most will enter/ exit from Platform 3 direct (and then under the bridge alongside Botley Road). No consideration of exiting to the south side of Botley Road?
Also nothing about the wholesale east side entrance rebuild needed to turn Platform 3 into an island.
Looks to me like a half-baked 'solution' hardly worthy of the city of dreaming spires- no aspiration/ inspiration?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'm also not convinced that a new entrance is a sufficient gain for the loss of the 2002-built and well-appreciated YHA.

Plenty of people pointed out in 2002 that building a youth hostel there would unnecessarily constrain future rail opportunities. But that was the Railtrack era and things were different then...

 

[BrianW]

Plenty of people pointed out in 2002 that building a youth hostel there would unnecessarily constrain future rail opportunities. But that was the Railtrack era and things were different then...

Irrespective of what 'plenty of people pointed out', surely it was approved by the elected representatives of the people; as the current proposals will need to be? So much for 'consultation'?
BTW who is paying for the 'road improvements'?
Has permanent road closure been considered? Or maybe with a single-deck tram Park-and-ride to city centre via st frideswidened station?

 

[Bald Rick]

Plenty of people pointed out in 2002 that building a youth hostel there would unnecessarily constrain future rail opportunities. But that was the Railtrack era and things were different then...

But having 20 years+ of a youth hostel before it being needed to be rebuilt as a station entrance is surely a good use of the space?

 

[The Planner]

Irrespective of what 'plenty of people pointed out', surely it was approved by the elected representatives of the people; as the current proposals will need to be? So much for 'consultation'?
BTW who is paying for the 'road improvements'?
Has permanent road closure been considered? Or maybe with a single-deck tram Park-and-ride to city centre via st frideswidened station?

Permanent closure of Botley road? Good luck with that one!

 

[hwl]

I should have looked at this video earlier; a pity tho' that its 46mins of must be one of the least easy to listen to rather hesitant voices. A lot of work to 'ease off' the Botley Road gradients and still end up with low headroom ...

There is a road height increase proposed for Botley Road.

I'm also not convinced that a new entrance is a sufficient gain for the loss of the 2002-built and well-appreciated YHA. Have YHA been bought off- there was no mention of relocation. Why not a rebuild over a new entrance? And someone entering that way will have to ascend somehow to reach Platform 4/5 and walk along the platform to reach a lift/stairs to the footbridge to reach Platforms 1, 2 and 3. I imagine most will enter/ exit from Platform 3 direct (and then under the bridge alongside Botley Road). No consideration of exiting to the south side of Botley Road?
Also nothing about the wholesale east side entrance rebuild needed to turn Platform 3 into an island.
Looks to me like a half-baked 'solution' hardly worthy of the city of dreaming spires- no aspiration/ inspiration?

There may well have been a buy back covenant in the sale.

The second entrance is somewhat academic, the track for P5 going through the building is being the main issue...

The Western entrance will also help segregate arriving and departing passenger flows much better than today. e.g. many Northbound arrivals into P4/5 would just exit via the western entrance rather than using the footbridge...

But having 20 years+ of a youth hostel before it being needed to be rebuilt as a station entrance is surely a good use of the space?

Living in Oxford at the time l always wondered how long it would last!

Permanent closure of Botley road? Good luck with that one!

Indeed, a small height increase for the bridge makes it much more useful for HGV deliveries to Westgate etc. a wide choice of bus /coach vehicles.

 

[BrianW]

But having 20 years+ of a youth hostel before it being needed to be rebuilt as a station entrance is surely a good use of the space?

Hardly a good lifespan for all that brickwork and concrete; I agree otherwise.

There is a road height increase proposed for Botley Road.

There may well have been a buy back covenant in the sale.

The second entrance is somewhat academic, the track for P5 going through the building is being the main issue...

The Western entrance will also help segregate arriving and departing passenger flows much better than today. e.g. many Northbound arrivals into P4/5 would just exit via the western entrance rather than using the footbridge...


Living in Oxford at the time l always wondered how long it would last!


Indeed, a small height increase for the bridge makes it much more useful for HGV deliveries to Westgate etc. a wide choice of bus /coach vehicles.

I can see that value in use of the Western entrance/ exit for those in the know travelling north or westwards or arriving from the south.
Regarding low headroom under the new bridge- even after the £millions it will still be LOW HEADROOM if I read it right.

Permanent closure of Botley road? Good luck with that one!

I dare say folk said the same about Queen Street, St Aldates, High Street/ The High AND Cornmarket.
What is the Park and Ride for?
Opportunity for more green transport policy- Botley Boulevard?

 

[JamesT]

I can see that value in use of the Western entrance/ exit for those in the know travelling north or westwards or arriving from the south.
Regarding low headroom under the new bridge- even after the £millions it will still be LOW HEADROOM if I read it right.

Part of the benefits for doing Botley Road Bridge is (from the Network Rail document):

Increased height will allow use of standard height double decker buses

I dare say folk said the same about Queen Street, St Aldates, High Street/ The High AND Cornmarket.
What is the Park and Ride for?
Opportunity for more green transport policy- Botley Boulevard?

Those streets are blocked to private cars, but still allow public transport. The problem with closing Botley Road is there is no alternative route from the West into the centre, including for the buses from the Park and Ride. The policy direction of the council has been to discourage traffic running through the centre and the proposed Zero Emission Zone will make it increasingly unattractive to drive into the centre. But unless there's going to be some alternative provision, Botley Road remains a critical route.

 

[Gagravarr]

Those streets are blocked to private cars, but still allow public transport. The problem with closing Botley Road is there is no alternative route from the West into the centre, including for the buses from the Park and Ride. The policy direction of the council has been to discourage traffic running through the centre and the proposed Zero Emission Zone will make it increasingly unattractive to drive into the centre. But unless there's going to be some alternative provision, Botley Road remains a critical route.

Maybe we should dust off some of those oh-so-very-popular ideas for an inner ring-road, including across Christchurch Meadow?

For those who haven't come across this historic plan and associated controversy, see https://www.uncomfortableoxford.co.uk/post/a-tale-of-two-cities-oxford-s-relief-road-controversy or https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32446

 

[BrianW]

Part of the benefits for doing Botley Road Bridge is (from the Network Rail document):



Those streets are blocked to private cars, but still allow public transport. The problem with closing Botley Road is there is no alternative route from the West into the centre, including for the buses from the Park and Ride. The policy direction of the council has been to discourage traffic running through the centre and the proposed Zero Emission Zone will make it increasingly unattractive to drive into the centre. But unless there's going to be some alternative provision, Botley Road remains a critical route.

I see a lot of 'modelling' has been done to devise the vertical reprofiling of the road: https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/case-study/botley-road-oxford-cassidy-forsythe/
Hoping that other vehicles will be well-enough deterred and thus no bridge strikes; and of course no flooding into the future. I believe 5m is the 'standard' height for a bridge and I thought I saw that the 'new' bridge will still provide only for less than that- happy to be corrected.

Sooner or later, there will be a question of EWR and Chiltern operating out of the new bays and how will they cope with with the Midland Railways described as "The embarrassment of prosperity" when it had to turn away traffic prior to quadrupling from Glendon Junction, One possibility is for EWR trains to continue through Oxford Station and on to the "Not quite to Cowley" branch. EWR is being built to facilitate commuting by rail and placing commuters closer to the new cluster centres of work seems logical. Already there are proposals for a new cluster next to the south west end of Oxford Station - other such sites on radial routes out of the city seem probable.
Proposed Oxford Business Park and Science Park Stations by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

Regarding 'extensions' of Chiltern/EWR/GBR services to the south- I seem to recall (form a 1960s timetable) that Oxford- London (not sure whether Paddington or Marylebone) was shorter via Cowley and Princes Risboro than via Didcot; I don't know how via Bicester Village compares. Ok so tunnels, ownerships etc will need investigation but surely possible- a 'business case'?

 

[The Planner]

Regarding 'extensions' of Chiltern/EWR/GBR services to the south- I seem to recall (form a 1960s timetable) that Oxford- London (not sure whether Paddington or Marylebone) was shorter via Cowley and Princes Risboro than via Didcot; I don't know how via Bicester Village compares. Ok so tunnels, ownerships etc will need investigation but surely possible- a 'business case'?

None whatsoever, Chiltern looked at the route prior to deciding on Bicester. Its been discussed before on here, far too much is built on.

 

[gallafent]

None whatsoever, Chiltern looked at the route prior to deciding on Bicester. Its been discussed before on here, far too much is built on.

Yes, and it's really unfortunate to my mind, because it's substantially shorter than the via-Bicester route! As ever, we are where we are!

I think I vaguely remember that some of it (that hadn't been built on) was safeguarded at some point (way back, I remember having an email exchange with someone at Chiltern Railways (I think, rather than Network Rail) asking whether that route was under consideration, when answering a consultation about the Oxford to Marylebone link …), though I don't know if that safeguarding was removed in the end once the Bicester route was chosen.

Quite a stretch from Princes Risborough to Thame is a cycle path now, and as such retained, which is something, should an alternative route through ever be considered!

I still think that extending the Cowley Branch as far as Wheatley M40 services as part of this project makes a great deal of sense … as a park-and-ride for anyone driving from many places east of Oxford, for access not only to the city centre but also to the business and science parks, it would be enormously better than driving all the way in to Thornhill and taking the bus. Not sure how much of the original route from the BMW factory to the M40 services is still “available” though …

 

[hwl]

Regarding low headroom under the new bridge- even after the £millions it will still be LOW HEADROOM if I read it right.

Any thing under 16'6" is technically low and that is 3'6" higher than currently.

 

[cle]

Another route to Oxford was only viable because of Bicester, also. Now the time advantage has been largely evaporated, but Oxford Parkway makes it more viable - again, a Cowley route would not have had this.

P2 being through would still retain one bay (P1) and I seem to recall talk of adding another bay to the east so there would still be two, north-facing. Of course there should have been a south-facing bay by now too, but that was killed off.

P2 being through is far more useful of course, but a south-facing bay for terminators from London, especially if the wires and Didcot 387s show up, would be very handy too. Length-constrained though, so P2 might act as the terminating platform (+ any EWR/Cowley through service), with P3 being from Banbury/Cotswolds.

 

[The Planner]

I still think that extending the Cowley Branch as far as Wheatley M40 services as part of this project makes a great deal of sense … as a park-and-ride for anyone driving from many places east of Oxford, for access not only to the city centre but also to the business and science parks, it would be enormously better than driving all the way in to Thornhill and taking the bus. Not sure how much of the original route from the BMW factory to the M40 services is still “available” though …

Very little. Gaps at Horspath, bat protected tunnel, loads built on at Wheatley, you might get round the edge of the services but thats it. Not sure about "all the way" to Thornhill, it can't be much more than 3 miles on a good dual carriageway.

 

[BrianW]

Very little. Gaps at Horspath, bat protected tunnel, loads built on at Wheatley, you might get round the edge of the services but thats it. Not sure about "all the way" to Thornhill, it can't be much more than 3 miles on a good dual carriageway.

More bats? Those bats would not be in the tunnel if the tunnel had not been built. The Wolvercote Tunnel held up the Bicester route improvements for ages, to what effect? More road congestion and pollution lasting longer; costs increased; benefits deferred ...
Would there be benefit in reviving this route; would it be worth it? Was it considered for 'Beeching Reversal'?

 

[gallafent]

Very little. Gaps at Horspath, bat protected tunnel, loads built on at Wheatley, you might get round the edge of the services but thats it. Not sure about "all the way" to Thornhill, it can't be much more than 3 miles on a good dual carriageway.

Looks like about 4.5 miles to drive, from a quick Google Maps … sure, it's not a huge distance. Can be pretty slow at busy times though I imagine (as can the bus into the city once you've parked …). I wonder if the county council has any plans to use Wheatley Services as one of its “further away” new park and rides (with a bus) (Eynsham being the first new one to go ahead I think).

… but yes, clearly it would be a pretty big project then. Hey ho. And I realise we're diverging away from the remodelling of Oxford station quite a lot now (from the initial link relating to the Cowley branch!) …

 

[davetheguard]

Permanent closure of Botley road? Good luck with that one!

Indeed! One of the main routes in to the city & the only one from the west.

 

[BrianW]

Looks like about 4.5 miles to drive, from a quick Google Maps … sure, it's not a huge distance. Can be pretty slow at busy times though I imagine (as can the bus into the city once you've parked …). I wonder if the county council has any plans to use Wheatley Services as one of its “further away” new park and rides (with a bus) (Eynsham being the first new one to go ahead I think).

… but yes, clearly it would be a pretty big project then. Hey ho. And I realise we're diverging away from the remodelling of Oxford station quite a lot now (from the initial link relating to the Cowley branch!) …

These things are relevant though. If 'passive provison' for the possibility of extending Platform 2 is being made there is a cost. If it's not then, as with Platform 5 and YHA there will be costs. To my simple mind it's hard to support spending money we don't have on things that are unlikely to happen in the 'foreseeable future' (whatever and however long that is).

And as regards Chiltern's choice of via Bicester in preference to via Thame, was 'both/and' considered? And now of course we have the advantage of knowing passenger numbers via the chosen route pre and during Covid and may be better able to forecast regarding Thame etc and to take into account recent and projected housing and other developments; also of course that it will be GBR considering. Something for a 'shadow GBR' to consider?

Also wondering whether electrification should be considered a 'definite' and what effect if any that might have on designs.

Indeed! One of the main routes in to the city & the only one from the west.

IIRC road traffic from the west on the A40 is directed to Oxford via the A4144 Woodstock Road, not the Botley Road, the Peartree (and Water Eaton) Park and Rides being clearly signposted.
If you mean from Swindon, I hardly recommend the A420 and of course Swindon and Oxford are well linked by rail (give or take connections at Didcot)!
Each of the principal road routes into Oxford is served by Park and Ride and drivers are very much encouraged to use them.
Is there evidence of the origins and destinations and purposes of traffic on the Botley Road and thus an assessment of just how vital it is?
A lot of 'public'/ taxpayers'/ rail travellers hard-earned money and that of future generations is being proposed to be spent so its right that its value should be fully considered at this stage.

 

[4COR]

IIRC road traffic from the west on the A40 is directed to Oxford via the A4144 Woodstock Road, not the Botley Road, the Peartree (and Water Eaton) Park and Rides being clearly signposted.
If you mean from Swindon, I hardly recommend the A420 and of course Swindon and Oxford are well linked by rail (give or take connections at Didcot)!
Each of the principal road routes into Oxford is served by Park and Ride and drivers are very much encouraged to use them.

Regardless of destinations of traffic, the whole point about the bridge rebuild/heightening is that standard double-deckers can get from the city centre out west (note the current bus station, and the new planned bus interchange are both on the east side of the rail line) - those services include local buses to the Park and Ride(!), services to Cumnor and Botley, and then the ones that go further afield like the 66 to Faringdon/Swindon, and the 4 to Wootton/Abingdon (the long way round). For the majority of those services, if you close the road, and make them go north or south first, in rush hour it could easily make a half hour trip at least twice as long.

If you're talking about allowing only buses/taxis etc, then good luck with that. Having a small (sensible!) road closure in Jericho to create an LTN and stop rat-running through there to avoid Woodstock Rd has caused enough arguments in the last year - and that's without a large number of people in work in Oxford!